it's ridiculous. First of all, this has NOTHING to do with religion. It's perfectly possible for religion and science to live side by side. To bring religion into this topic shows a certain amount of insecurity.
While it's true that this discovery might add some insight into how the universe came to be, this discovery has nothing to do with explaining how life came to be. That's a separate topic altogether. And even the Big Bang theory does not necessarily have to contradict the creation theory. After all, the bible doesn't describe in detail how God created the universe. He might have done it through the Big Bang, who knows.
Now, it's true that some areas of science do directly contradict the bible. Like evolution. But like stated, this experiment has nothing to do with that and this discovery can still be compatible with biblical beliefs.
The main purpose behind this experiment, besides knowing how the universe came to be (which is a separate topic from knowing how life came to be), was to complete the standard model of particle physics. The Higgs Boson was the last piece of the puzzle and it's the particle that supposedly explains why things have mass (not to be confused with gravity, so no anti-gravity tech will result from this).
Now, this board has a certain amount of cynicism regarding science, which is understandable. But that is more the fault of the media that is unable to discern the worthiness of a scientist's reputation, experiment or is unable to correctly interpret the findings and its conclusions and ramifications. Also, readers themselves have been unable to correctly interpret what an article actually says. Not to say that the scientific process is flawless, since no man is perfect, so the scientific process isn't perfect either.
Take this recent news for example. The media has been unable to explain the significance of this recent news compared to past articles. Some people have dismissed this news as being the same as the other news articles that concern the Higgs. Former articles gave the impression that the Higgs was found and this new news article says a similar thing as well. So they dismiss this news as being the same. It's not. What makes this different, is that the findings were ascertained with a level of 5 Sigma. This is the level that is required for a finding to be seen as (most likely) true. Scientist can now be fairly certain that it's not a fluke and that a new boson has indeed been found. The headline is also incorrect in stating that the Higgs has been found. What has been found is a new particle. It's still in question if this new particle is actually the Higgs. It's highly likely seeing as it fits the predictions, but more research has to be done to see if this particle is actually responsible for mass.
Now certain people have dismissed this 5 sigma level, saying they need to come back after ascertaining 100% level of certainty. As I understand it 5 sigma denotes something different from certainty. And saying that you need 100% shows a certain lack of understanding of science (and probably general education as well). It is IMPOSSIBLE to ever ascertain things with 100% accuracy, due to Heisenbergs uncertainty principle. If you want an extreme example, even us experiencing this reality, may be because we are in something similar to the matrix. Making observations obtained with our eyes (like observing an apple) false. But we would never be able to prove it if this were the case, even if the chances are fairly remote. Another example is that we cannot say that a certain particle cannot exist, since it may well exist in the universe next door. If all we've ever seen are white birds, it doesn't mean that black ones don't exist somewhere else. Same principle with God. You can never prove that God doesn't exist.
As for the naming of the God particle, it has nothing to do with religion. A writer named it the Goddamn particle to denote how difficult finding the particle was, but a publisher changed it to God particle due to profanity.
As for science being a religion, yes and no. Those that believe in science can believe in it so strongly that it resembles religious belief. But such a person can never be a true scientist, since a true scientist must be open to many possibilities and has a belief system that is not rigid. While a certain element of belief or faith is certainly present within science, the beauty of it, is that it's not a rigid belief or unshakable faith. It can be changed or altered with new insights. You see, true science is interested in TRUTH. It discards formerly held opinions in favor of superior ones, should the findings of these new truths be deemed reliable. And in order to do this, these truths are constantly TESTED, something you won't see religion do very often. And these tests must be REPRODUCIBLE, meaning that if a truth is true, upon repetition a same result must come out of it. It's for these reasons that science has mostly replaced religion, because most religions have no truth seeking process that's quite as good as how science does it. And without those processes, the belief system comes in doubt, since they haven't been properly tested and verified.
Now above are broad generalizations about religion. Some people break that generalization, since there are many religious people actively seeking out the truth (through science). But IMO, those people are in a different class compared to people that just simply believe and make broad generalizations about science themselves without doing anything themselves. There's a vast difference in quality of opinions held by people who actually look into things and people who protect their own belief system, simply because they happen to believe it. It's similar to how RP people have more worthy opinions than Romney people, simply because they actually research the issues rather than sitting on their asses and let other people do the thinking for them.
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, o